It is possible to produce enough food to feed a growing population without another tree being felled, according to new research. But there’s a catch.

The only way to guarantee enough food in 2050 is if the world turns vegan, says the study published Tuesday in Nature Communications. That way, even the most pessimistic projections for technological improvements and availability of farmland wouldn’t see people going hungry.

With a global transition to veganism unlikely, the study explores the options left on the table if we continue to eat meat, as well as how climate change might narrow those options further.

The study is more of a thought experiment than a realistic set of projections. But the point it makes is simple: We, as humans, must work out how to make the most appropriate use of a finite amount of land. While there will inevitably be compromises, the paper concludes:

“Deforestation is not a precondition for supplying the world with sufficient food in terms of quantity and quality in 2050.”

“Zero-Deforestation”

Whether for growing crops, grazing or building on, 75 percent of the Earth’s ice-free surface is used in one way or another by humans, today’s study begins. Put another way, only a quarter is left in something resembling its natural state.

Land-based ecosystems house a large fraction of the world’s biodiversity, as well as providing food, fuel, energy, air and water purification and protection against the elements for humans.

Forests, in particular, also play an important role in mitigating climate change. The paper notes:

“Forests store more carbon than any other land-cover type per unit area.”

The starting point for the study is a hypothetical world in which the global population recognizes the intrinsic value of our remaining forests and halts to deforestation.

The authors look at the projected global population in 2050 and work out what options exist for ensuring the supply of food meets demand, without encroaching on any forested land.

As well as a global average, the study considers whether supply meets demand in 11 distinct regions of the world. These include, for example, sub-Saharan Africa, North America, Western Europe and Southeast Asia.

The authors express food demand in kilocalories per capita per day and the base projections are in line with estimates from the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).

Regarding the consequence of a growing population on demand for cereals, roots, sugar crops, pulses, oil crops, and fruit and vegetables, the paper explains:

“Safeguarding the existing forests constrains agricultural development as it limits the expansion of cropland and grazing areas. Consequently, the increasing demand for food, feed, fibre and fuel of a growing world population will have to be met on shrinking per capita land areas.”

Options on the Table

The study examines how various different factors combine to affect whether or not demand is met in 2050. These include the expansion of farmland (ranging between 11-70 percent compared to 2000), the size of crop yields (high, low or business-as-usual) and the composition of human diet (ranging from heavy meat consumption through to veganism).

Of 500 pathways, each featuring a unique combination of these factors, 289 are likely to produce enough food while still staying within the study’s “zero-deforestation” limits.

According to the study’s results, 100 percent of scenarios that exclude all livestock manage to supply enough food to meet demand in 2050. In other words, if the whole world becomes vegan, the global population in 2050 could eat enough without another tree being cut down.

The same would be true if the whole world turned vegetarian, assuming the area available for crops expands more than about 22 percent compared to 2000 levels. The paper says:

Assuming the world neither turns vegan nor vegetarian, what options are left? The study explores various options for continuing to eat meat, while still keeping our forests in tact.

Broadly-speaking, if the diet of North America in 2000 were to prevail globally in 2050, only scenarios in which technological advancements produce very high yields or where a large share of high quality grazing land is given over to cropland provide enough food.

Scenarios that see global food demand and diets in different regions rise in line with FAO forecasts for 2050—representing a “business-as-usual” scenario—provide enough food in all but the lowest yielding scenarios with little cropland expansion.

Women harvest rice in the remote village of Tanjung Alam (“Corner of Nature”) in the highlands of Jambi Province, Sumatra. Photo credit: Rainforest Action Network

Climate Impact

The study does not explicitly model the impact of climate change on food production or how it affects the results presented above. This was a deliberate choice because the severity of the consequences is uncertain, says lead author Prof. Karl-Heinz Erb from Alpen-Adria University in Vienna. He tells Carbon Brief:

“We have general effects that are not well-known and it is unclear which one is stronger.”

Erb explains that where nutrients and water are freely available, higher atmospheric CO2 could increase plant growth—an effect known as CO2 fertilization. Lengthening growing seasons could be another consequence of rising temperature. But, Erb adds:

“On the other hand, the shift in climate patterns could lead to to increased occurrence of extreme events (e.g droughts) and, so, reduce yields.”

Instead, the paper makes a general point about the consequence of low yields, saying:

As a reasonable approximation to climate change, the authors point to their “organic” scenario, in which crop yields per harvest are 40 percent lower compared to industrial agriculture. Erb explains:

“Organic farming is at the lower end of the possible yield level.”

The study’s organic route is only likely to be able to support the FAO’s business-as-usual meat-eating scenario out to 2050 if cropland expands at least 20 percent on 2000 levels. No scenarios allow for an organic approach to food production and global adoption of a North American style diet, the study suggests.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the stories on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.